Originally Posted by RocketMoose
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yes, but you see, at some point we did come from primates right? So in this theory that you've postalized (I assume you mean postulated) then there would still be a need for some of these monkeys to become humans in order to survive as we continue to kill off their natural habitats thus forcing out their food supply vs population and forcing someone to survive and some to fail. So right now this process would still be happening. Same would be true for a human that is forced to live out in the caves, and do things only at night he would 'devolve' to suit his condition better right?
I don't refute this. The difference is you haven't been around for 10,000 years to watch what happens to the monkeys in the Amazon with no trees to live in. Give it enough time and you WOULD see that some phenotypical expressions would come to dominate the population based on those best suited to a new tree-less habitat. It's called fitness.
Also, there is not such thing as devolve, again you equate evolution with increasing complexity and comparison to a standard set by present-day Homo Sapiens. Increased temperature tolerance and improved night vision would be improvements to compensate for their natural environment of caves and nighttime activity. Not lessened survivability. I don't know how else to explain to you that this can't happen to a person, or even a persons progeny 10 generations later. It takes a population, like if maybe a thousand people lived this way, you *might* see changes in 100 generations. Assuming they bred by fitness selection. I'm not even gonna get into Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. It's lost on you right now.
You have these gaping holes that you can't explain. Your 2 nice neat vacuum scenarios don't work in the real life situation.
Actually they work perfectly well. Members of a population that are able to survive better than another member breed more, and those offspring survive better than those less capable. Over time, the less capable ones are found less and less in the population, unless those traits are advantageous elsewhere. I don't even understand how you can argue against this.
It's just like physics in a classroom, they designate a coefficient of friction etc to come up with a world to do their work, and prove that they are right. Those truths are in fact in the world, and absolutely make perfect sense, because they are out there, but those scenarios you present don't disprove God, or prove evolution.
So now you're going to refute physics too? Those 'made up' lab coeffecients are derived from real world data, and implemented to improve the accuracy of data in a lab setting. You can't calculate wind drag on an object falling 10 feet, and it's not feasible to drop something from 1000 for the sake of measurement. So, does gravity exist, or is it just that God that pushes things to the ground so they don't end up cluttering up Heaven? LoL.
Never in the Bible did it say that man can't adapt, that God's creation can't change in order to be better at things. That's why we practice, it's not because our bodies don't have the ability to do things, it's that we haven't learned how to do them, or haven't learned how to do them as effectively as possible.
Again, you seem to be arguing that you or I, on a personal level could evolve. That's just not so. You need to distinguish a learned behavior from genetic fitness. Playing baseball well doesn't improve your survival odds.
If evolution were true, then how is it that just innately that some people in today's generation have 0 physical ability to do something athletic. The skinny guys, and girls who end up behind a computer with the typical stereotype. Then same can be said for guys who are just innately born with a gift for athletics, even if their parents weren't. Same would be true with the monkeys. Not every small agile monkey would be the best climber, not every big powerful monkey would be unable to climb well. I mean c'mon, seriously, in the 'perfect world' that you've created, absolutely it makes perfect since, but there are things that science can not yet explain, that are out there.
I won't pretend that my comparative scenario wasn't oversimplified. But it still holds true statistically. Organisms well suited to their environment live longer, and are more sexually attractive to a potential mate than those less suited. More attractive= more dissemination of genetic material=more organisms that have the same traits.
The reason we see discrepancies in human breeding in your life is simple: People don't choose mates on fitness anymore. They haven't in probably 3000 years. In a civilized society, there is no survival benefit to being faster, or taller, or stronger. When people stopped hunting for survival, being able to provide for family better than another became less of a breeding consideration. Today, people breed on 1) physical appearance (to which I could engage on a totally new tangent of conversation that this is actually HARMFUL to human evolution) and 2) personality (which arguably has little benefit to ensuring fitness of progeny.)
I have a buddy of mine, amazing athlete, his brother by the same parents, no athletic ability what so ever. They were raised in the same house, doing similar activities, in what way does this support your theory of blacks being born to blacks etc?
I'm not sure I understand the point of your thinly veiled racism. Black parents create black children. Take genetics 101, it'll explain everything. In the spirit of debate, I'll play along. This is genetics at work. Genotypic information is literally a crapshoot. Not everyone gets exactly the same combination of genetic information, not even from the same parents. Do us both a favor and google 'Punnett sqare' for a super simple crash-course. If those brothers were born 30,000 years ago, the athletic one would likely be more attractive to a mate, and almost certainly pass along his genetic information, probably to more than one partner, and many offspring. The other, may mate, but almost certainly less so, and thus his genes would be under-represented in that generation.
People keep saying I'm the one with no reason, yet when I come to you with a real world scenario you're not going to have anything to say, because science can't say why, because science isn't creation.
Science doesn't just chalk it up to God's plan, and call it day. Science questions and tests until a satisfactory understanding is attained.
I don't blindly believe, if I did I wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation. Bring me a fact, not something you've just come up with out of nowhere. Like how can you explain this...
My friend's Uncle, was one of the healthiest, best athletes, and just all around just the ideal physical specimen. Yet Thanksgiving day he wakes up out of nowhere with this huge pain in his stomach, goes to the hospital, and they found a tumor the size of a football in his stomach. They found out that it was cancerous and told him he had a couple of weeks, to a couple of months to live. So this is something that science proved to in fact be real, and be there.
Yet, a few weeks later he went back in and without surgery, without anything going on because they didn't think chemo was worth it, the tumor was gone, and he was given a 100% clean bill of health.
What does your science have to say about that? Cause I know what the non-Christian doctor said. And I assure you it had nothing to do with science, medicine or anything else 'tangible'
There are so many variables in that story it would be laughable to even entertain the 'why'. You gave ZERO context in that story. If forced, I would first look at a faulty machine, or him being mistakenly given another's results.
Counter-question: Why would God give him a football-sized tumor, and then suddenly take it away?
|
02-01-2011, 02:57 PM
Hybrid Mode
